Beethoven and the London Pianoforte School

Author(s): Alexander L. Ringer

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 4, Special Issue Celebrating the Bicentennial of the
Birth of Beethoven (Oct., 1970), pp. 742-758
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/740936 .
Accessed: 29/01/2012 09:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical
Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
 BEETHOVEN AND THE
LONDON PIANOFORTE SCHOOL
By ALEXANDER L. RINGER

N thespringof 1787,whenBeethoven leftBonnon hisfirst, abortive

to
trip Vienna, the Josephine era was gaining its final momentum.
Reactionaryforceseventuallyreversedmany of the reformsinstitutedby
Marie-Antoinette's progressivebrother,JosephII. Still,in Mozart's days,
especiallyin the late Austriain generaland Vienna in
seventeen-eighties,
particularenjoyed the artisticand intellectualfruitsof unprecedented
freedom.'In termsof subsequenteventsit is of relativelylittleimportance
whetheror not Beethoven actually succeeded in meeting Mozart, as
originallyplanned; far more significanthistoricallyis the fact that
Mozart's Vienna made a lastingimpact on the sensitiveteenagerfrom
provincial Bonn, who returnedfive years later to receive, in Count
Waldstein's famous words, "the spirit of Mozart from the hands of
Haydn." By 1792 Mozart, whose artisticmaturityhad been so inextric-
ably tied to the liberatingspiritof the Josephineera, was of course no
longer among the living. As for Haydn, who agreed to become Beet-
hoven's Viennese mentorafterexamininghis dramatic funeral cantata
writtenon the death of JosephII in 1790, that musical stalwartof tra-
ditionaleighteenth-century values nevereventriedto bridgethegeneration
gap. Beforelong Beethoven found it expedientto entrusthimselfto the
guidance of lesser but more accessible men like the popular tunesmith
Schenk and the solid but conventionalcraftsmanAlbrechtsberger.
In post-JosephineVienna the true "spiritof Mozart" was hardlyapt
to flourish,As so often in history,political and militarythreatsfrom
abroad, both real and imagined,spawned political oppressionat home.
Beethoven,a young idealist who believed in man's duty "to do good
whenever one can, to love libertyabove all else, never to deny the
1 Cf. Alexander L.
Ringer, "Mozart and the Josephian Era: Some Socio-Eco-
nomic Notes on Musical Change," Current Musicology, IX (1969), 161-63.

742
 Beethovenand the London PianoforteSchool 743

truth,even though it be beforethe throne,"2 reacted to this regressive

atmosphereat times with undisguisedcynicism."I believe," he wrote
to Simrockin 1794, "that so long as an Austriancan get his brown ale
and his littlesausages,he is not likelyto revolt."3 What saved him from
complete disillusionmentwere such steadfastpersonal friendsas Franz
Wegeler and Karl Amenda, slightlyolder companions of his youth in
Bonn, and the von Breuningfamily,ever dedicated to his welfare.More-
over, as a fashionablepianist "on the make," young Beethovenenjoyed
a vogue among some of Vienna's most beautifuland cultivatedwomen.
But on the musical scene, only the indestructibleHaydn continuedto
create worksof outstandinginterest,though by this time mostlyin the
choral field. It was thus nothingless than a matterof artisticsurvival
which forced a composerof Beethoven'sprogressivetendenciesto seek
creativemodels elsewhere.That he found them primarilyin republican
France and protodemocraticEngland was virtuallyinevitablein view of
the historicalcircumstances.
With veryfew exceptions,the Englishcomposerswho aroused Beet-
hoven's curiositywere Englishby culturaladaptation ratherthan birth.
Like other European capitals, including Paris and Vienna, eighteenth-
centuryLondon attractedsuperiormusiciansirrespective of national ori-
gin because it offeredeconomic and artisticopportunitiesunavailable
in
elsewhere, conformancewith historicalrule that applies no less to
a
Berlinbetweenthe two worldwars or the courtof Burgundyin the early
fifteenthcentury.It was thanksto an unusuallyrich concertlife,adven-
turouspublishinghouses,a pianoforteindustryunmatchedin qualityand
efficiency- in short,to the many novel opportunitiesofferedby Eng-
land's budding capitalisticsociety- that outstandingmusiciansof such
diverse national backgroundsas the Italian-born Clementi, the Bohe-
mian Dussek, the German Cramer,and the IrishmanField became part
and parcel of the London musical scene in the seventeen-nineties. That
the singularrole of London in the developmentof instrumentalmusic
after Mozart has been ignored to the point where a leading contem-
poraryscholar can stillspeak with impunityof an alleged Komponisten-
not in late-eighteenth-century England merelytestifiesto the stubborn
persistenceof the nationalisticfallacyin musical historiography.4
2 Emily Anderson,ed. and trans.,The Letters of Beethoven
(London, 1961), I, 6.
s Ibid., I. 18.
4Cf. Georg Knepler, Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1961), I,
412. Knepler explains this alleged dearth of composers in Marxist terms as part of a
"faulty circle of bad thoughtsand good business" (ibid., p. 413). On the "capitalis-
tic" side William S. Newman relegates his discussion of "Dussek and other early
744 The Musical Quarterly

Increasinglydominated by the growingfortunesof a rapidly rising

middle class, the Britishcapital offeredmusic, "the favoriteart of the
middle classes,"s the art in which middle-classemotionsfindtheirmost
directand unhamperedexpression,an entirelynew market.The extent
to whichthismiddleclass marketmotivatedimmediateand drasticmusi-
cal changesis illustratednowheremore dramaticallythan in the stylistic
peculiaritiesof the "London PianoforteSchool." Whereas continental
Europe was ready for the pathos and sonoroussplendor of Schumann
or Chopin only in the wake of a whole seriesof socio-economicconvul-
sions, the middle-classpredilectionfor harmonic texture of the type
characterizedby Wagner half a centurylater as a sea into which "man
dives to yieldhimselfagain, radiantand refreshed, to the lightof day," 6
motivated "the prophecies of Dussek" in England well before 1800.'
And in theirown individualways the melodic-rhythmic of
eccentricities
Clementi,the glitteringpassageworkof Cramer, and the oftenself-in-
dulgingsentimentalelegance of Field all satisfiedthe passion fornovelty
and built-inobsolescence,the gullibilityand escapist mentality,of the
new product-oriented society.On the whole, the English public, antici-
pating its Continental counterpartsby more than a generation,favored
a domesticatedtype of musical art cateringto short-rangeemotional
effects,oftenat the expense of structuralsolidityand logic. For music,
not unlike the Gothic novel, was to provide an affectivecounterweight
to the highly rationalized behavioi that produced the urban middle
classes' ever-increasingmaterialaffluence.
Dussek, Clementi,and theirfollowersthus developed distinctstylistic
characteristicsno less unique than those associatedwith theirfar better
known and justlyfamous Viennese contemporaries.This is not to say
that these two schools of musical thoughtexertedno mutual influence.
On the contrary,just as the London PianoforteSchool could not have
done withoutthe pioneeringwork of Haydn and Mozart, the Viennese
composerssoon put to good use the texturalinnovationsof their col-
leagues acrossthe Channel. The veryopeningchordsof Haydn's Sonata
Czech romantics" to the last quarter of The Sonata Since Beethoven (Chapel Hill,
N. C., 1969) apparently convinced that "Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary" oc-
cupied peripheral positions in European musical historyin time as well as space.
5 Arnold Hauser, The Social History of Art (New York, 1958), III, 82.
6Richard Wagner, Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft, trans. in Oliver Strunk, ed.,
Source Readings in Music History (New York, 1950), p. 884.
7 Cf. Eric Blom, "The Prophecies of Dussek," in his Classics: Major and Minor
(London, 1958), pp. 88-117 (originallypublished in installmentsin Musical Opinion,
1927-28).
 Beethovenand the London PianoforteSchool 745

in E-flat (No. 52), writtenafterDussek lent him his own piano of latest
English manufacture,are proofthat such directinfluenceswere readily
acknowledged. By the same token, Dussek assumes the stature of a
prophetonly in the eyes of thosewho thinkof European historyin uni-
lateral and evolutionisticterms,insensitiveto the high degree of artistic
diversificationtypicalof sophisticatedsocieties,separatelyand collectively,
depending upon a variety of frequentlyincompatible socio-economic
factors.
Even though Haydn's mature works reflecthis eventual close links
with the musical life of London in many unmistakableways, it was
Beethoven who produced the first,perhaps also the last, synthesisof
elementsassociated with revolutionaryParis as well as
stylistic-aesthetic
the Vienna-London axis. If Paris leftits tracesprimarilyin his dramatic
output,both symphonicand operatic,London made decisive contribu-
tionstowardthe greatchoral compositionsand, above all, the thirty-two
piano sonatas.The NinthSymphony,whichwas writtenexplicitlyforthe
London PhilharmonicSociety,bears eloquent witnessto what struckhis
visitorJohann Andreas Stumpffin 1824 as Beethoven's"exaggerated
opinion of London and its highlyculturedinhabitants."8 The sonorities
of the last piano sonatas, in turn, would be unthinkable without
the remarkablequalities of the Broadwood piano that he receivedfrom
England in 1818. By then,however,Beethovenlooked back to a quarter
of a centuryof intimateacquaintance with music especiallywrittenfor
instrumentsof English manufacture.The contributorto the Encyclo-
paedia Britannica,who in 1797 claimed the pianoforteas "a national
"
instrument,.., an Englishcontrivance," surelyexaggeratedin ascribing
itsinventionto William Mason. But he did have a pointwhen he praised
the Englishpianofortefor "its superiorforceof tone, its adequate sweet-
ness, and the great varietyof voice of which our artistshave made it
susceptible."10Beethoven,forone, was highlyappreciativeof that "great
varietyof voice," especiallyas promotedby Muzio Clementi,the London
Pianoforte School's titular head. His by no means extensivemusical
librarycontained nearlyall of Clementi's sonatas, "the most beautiful,
the most pianisticof works."n And it was mainlybecause of a manifest
8 Cf. AlexanderWheelockThayer,Life of Beethoven,
ed. Elliot Forbes (Prince-
ton,N. J.,1964),II, 919.
9 Edwin M. Ripin,"A ScottishEncyclopedistand the Pianoforte,"
The Musical
LV (1969), 496.
Quarterly,
10Ibid.
11Cf. AntonFelix Schindler,BeethovenAs I (KnewHim, ed. Donald W. Mac-
Ardle (Chapel Hill, N. C., 1966), p. 379.
746 The Musical Quarterly

lack of enthusiasmforClementithat Carl Czerny,Beethoven'sstarpupil,

was eventuallydismissedas his nephew'spiano teacher.The high regard
in which he held Cramer, on the other hand, speaks with particular
persuasionfromthe marginalcommentshe insertedin his nephew's copy
of the CramerEtudes.12
While the importanceof Clementi as a "forerunnerof Beethoven"
has not gone unrecognized,13the generalassumptionseems to have been
that his directinfluenceremained limitedto "firstperiod" Beethoven.
Actually,Clementi never disappeared fromthe master'sconstantlyex-
panding musical horizons.If the beginningof Opus 7 betrayshis knowl-
edge of Clementi'sOpus 12, No. 4 (Ex. 1), and its finale recalls Cle-
menti's Opus 24, No. 2, the conclusionof the Sonata appassionata is
even moreclearlyindebtedto thatof Clementi'sOpus 36, No. 3 (Ex. 2).
Ex. 1 Clementi,Op. 12, No. 4, firstmvt.,mm. 1-4
A
i- A A "
N
: .I I. .
-I,,,k

Beethoven,Op. 7, firstmvt.,mm. 1-6

p IIf 4i
E ent,Op. 76,No.ir mvt., conclusio
B.e2tCle ,thr
Ex.
2 Clementi,
P 17
05k
aOp.
36,
No.
A3,third
mv.,
conclusion i
1
,HL11. ... .. .. k
'- _,-.. l , ,- , ,

12 The Beethoven Cramer

Studies, ed. John S. Shedlock (London, 1893).
13See among others, J. S.
Shedlock, The Pianoforte Sonata (London, 1895),
pp. 131-39; Adolf Stauch, Muzio Clementis Klavier-Sonaten im Verhiltnis zu den
Sonaten von Haydn, Mozart u. Beethoven (Oberkassel bei Bonn, 1930); Georges de
Saint Foix, "Clementi, Forerunner of Beethoven," The Musical Quarterly, XVII
(1931), 84-92.
 and theLondonPianoforte
Beethoven School 747

Op. 57,third
Beethoven, conclusion
mvt.,
(i1f)

In 1823, about to conclude his life'sworkas a keyboardcomposer,Beet-

hoven paid Clementia last characteristichomage by parodyingnumbers
16 and 17 of the 1817 editionof the Gradus ad Parnassum in his Dia-
belli Variations.RetainingClementi'sgeneralidea and structuraloutline
he substitutedbrokenoctavesforClementi'ssimplescale patternsand, as
an added touch,employedthesame numbersbut in reverseorder (Ex. 3).
Ex. 3 Clementi,Gradusad Parnassum,No. 17, mm. 1-2

A I I- T
.-II
f

Clementi,Gradusad Parnassum,No. 16, mm. 1-2

No. 16, mm. 1-2

GDiabelli Variationssum,
ClBeethoventi,

feethoven,Diabelli Variations,No 17, mm. 1

10)
748 The Musical Quarterly

Accordingto his pupil Ludwig Berger,Clementi conceived both of

the sonatas in his Opus 34 orchestrally, the firstas a piano concerto,the
second as a symphony."No doubt several otherspublished in the sev-
enteen-eighties, especially those with slow introductions,were at least
indirectfruitsof thissymphonicpreoccupationsparkedby Haydn's phe-
nomenal London successes.'5Whatevertheirexact motivation,however,
the best of his worksfromthat period displaythe aestheticintensityand
correspondingtightmotivicorganizationas well as the exteriordimen-
sions that typify the matureeighteenth-century symphonyratherthan its
keyboardcounterpart. The G minor Sonata, Opus 34, No. 2, with its
thematicallypregnantopening largo offersa brilliantdemonstrationof
the kind of symphonically inspiredstructurethat musthave been on the
mind of the criticJ. B. Schaul who wrotein 1809: "All passages... are
a directoutgrowthof the dominatingidea which is neverlostsightof." 16
Indeed, no eighteenth-century keyboardcomposer anticipated Beetho-
ven's conceptof the "underlyingidea" more explicitly.As C. M. Girdle-
stone put it with specificreferenceto Opus 34, No. 2, "Clementi alone
could teach Beethovento satisfythat craving for unitywhich he, too,
broughtwith him into music." 17
Unlike Clementi's,Dussek's contributions to Beethoven'sstylisticar-
senal have been virtuallyignored. His solitarychampion, Eric Blom,
extolled Dussek primarilyfor his "prophecies" of romantic keyboard
idioms. While none would wish to deny Dussek's oftenamazing antici-
pations of stylistictraits identifiedwith nineteenth-century composers
fromSchumann to Brahms,one wondershow Blom could have failed to
notice the extentto which,forexample, Dussek's sonata Opus 9, No. 1,
influencedBeethoven'sOpus 22 in mattersof textureand patterningas
well as structure(Ex. 4)."8
14Max Unger, Muzio ClementisLeben (Langensalza, 1914), pp. 72-73.
15Cf. Georges de Saint-Foix, "Les Symphonies de Clementi," Revue de musi-
cologie, VIII (1924), 2.
1e Quoted in Adolf Stauch, op. cit., p. 49.
17C. M. Girdlestone,"Muzio Clementi," Music and Letters, XIII (1932), 290.
Cf. also Alexander L. Ringer, "Clementi and the Eroica," The Musical Quarterly,
XLVII (1961), 454-55.
18Donald Francis Tovey, Beethoven, ed. Hubert J. Foss (London, 1965), p. 106,
calls Opus 22 "the most conventional of all Beethoven's works" and characterizes the
main subject of its firstmovementas a "locus classicus for masterfulperfunctoriness."
J. Racek and V. J. S'kora in their three-volumeedition of the Dussek sonatas
(Prague, 1960) referto both Opus 9 and Opus 10 as "compositionsfor piano solo."
The original Sieber editions, however, suggest violin accompaniment. While it is, of
course, possible that the French publisher simplyfollowed established tradition in this
respect,the fact remains that the violin was dropped fromall editions published after
 Beethovenand the London PianoforteSchool 749
Ex. 4 Dussek,Op. 9, No. 1, secondmvt.,mm.49-51

Beethoven,Op. 22, firstmvt.,mm.22-23

A
'.
PP
IL . . . :, . .

A completeaccountingof the many stylisticparallels and, on occa-

sion, outrightborrowingsattestingto Beethoven'ssustained interestin
Dussek is quite beyond the scope of the presentstudy.But even a rela-
tivelysmall samplingsuggestswhy Dussek was so quicklyforgottenafter
his death in 1812. There was simplyno furtherneed for the worksof
an admittedlyvery talented composerwhose most distinctivecontribu-
tions had been fullyabsorbed and raised to far higher aestheticlevels
by Beethoven,the traumatichero of the Romantic era. As Eric Blom
pointedout in his criticalappraisal of the collectiveachievementof Cle-
menti,Dussek and Field, "the triumviratetactfullywent with the evolu-
tion step by step, now offeringa suggestion,now takinga hint," in con-
trastto Beethovenwho tended to forcethe issues.'"How Beethovenre-
acted to such "suggestions"can he seen froma comparisonof his Opus
10, No. 3, with Dussek's Opus 31, No. 2, an accompanied keyboard
sonata published ca. 1795. Neitherthe melodic-rhythmic characteristics
of Beethoven's materials nor their phrasing and dynamics,leave any
doubt as to theirorigins (Ex. 5). Moreover,since Beethovenrarely,if
ever, limited his sources to a single work, his Opus 10, No. 3, also
draws heavilyon Dussek's Opus 35, No. 2. That Dussek set the pace not
only rhythmically, harmonically,and dynamically,but also structurally
followsfromthe obvious similaritiesin the preparationand initiationof

Dussek left France for England. Mr. Jerald Graue, who is currentlyworking on a
Universityof Illinois dissertationexploringthe achievementsof the London Pianoforte
School as a whole, agrees that the so-called complete edition of Breitkopf& Hiirtel
(1813-17) and the later Dussek publications by Litolff,the Czech editors' primary
sources, are quite unreliable in mattersof titles as well as musical texts of the earlier
sonatas.
19Eric Blom, "John Field," in op. cit., p. 125.
750 The Musical Quarterly

the recapitulationin the respectivefirstmovements(Ex. 6). At least at

that relativelyearly stage of his career, it would seem, Beethovenwas
ready to go to great lengthsto enhance his growingreputationas a
sparklingyoung virtuoso,even if this meant copyingthe manners and
mannerismsof establishedcolleagues.,s
Ex. 5 Dussek,Op. 31, No. 2, firstmvt.,mm. 142-47

Beethoven,Op. 10, No. 3, firstmvt.,mm.74-79

sf Sf

p
ir
Af

Ex. 6 Dussek,Op. 35, No. 2, firstmvt.,mm. 156-59

con espressO
legato

Beethoven,Op.10, No. 3, firstmvt.,mm. 131-34

-0
6.
Historically,the issue is, of course,much less one of "influence,"let
alone plagiarism,than of musical conditioningand outlook.The case of
20 Tovey in op. cit., p. 92, wondered whether Beethoven's Opus 10, No. 3, "can
have been acceptable to orthodox musicians in 1798." While it is difficultto know
exactly what is meant here by "orthodox," no well-informedmusician was unaware
of Clementi by that time. And it was preciselyClementi who had made the most of
the "rhetorical gestures and pauses" to which Tovey refers. Cf. Schindler, op. cit.,
p. 417.
 Beethovenand the London PianoforteSchool 751

Dussek's Opus 39, No. 3, may serve to illustratethis crucial point. Eric
Blom dismissedthat particularsonata with the remarkthat "a studyof
the firstmovementis almostprofitless."
21 Had he been less single-minded
about the supposednatureof his hero's"prophecies,"he surelywould not
have missed the uncanny resemblanceof its beginningto that of Beet-
hoven's Opus 10, No. 1 (Ex. 7). Since the two worksappeared almost
simultaneously,it would be difficultto furnishproof positive for the
generativeprimacyof either.Even so, one is hard put to believethatBeet-
hoven was totallyunfamiliarwiththe Dussek piece at the time he com-
posed his own. For all we know, he may have seen it in manuscript
or, more likely,heard it performedby one of the many itinerantemis-
sariesof the London PianoforteSchool.
Ex. 7 Dussek,Op. 39, No. 3, firstmvt.,mm. 1-4

Ic

Beethoven,Op. 10, No. 1, firstmvt.,mm. 1-5

A
z
'610,J .f
air0 _.!1 tf P
-: _
Dussek's Opus 35, dedicated to Clementi,must have made a very
special impressionon Beethoven.For itsimpact can be tracedfromOpus
10 through Opus 28, Opus 53, and Opus 57, to Opus 101, whose
fugal developmentsection Dussek anticipated in the finale of the first
of the threesonatas in his set. Once again, historianstakingfor granted
that the climactic figure in the "Viennese Classical School" merely
broughtto fruitionseeds planted by Haydn and Mozart could hardly
be expected to turn to Dussek's Opus 35 for antecedentsof some of
Beethoven'smost original"middle period" pieces. And yet,the G major
Sonata, Opus 35, No. 2, left easily recognizabletraces in Beethoven's
Opus 53 (Ex. 8) as well as in his earlierOpus 28 (Ex. 9). The stormy
C minorSonata, Opus 35, No. 3, on the otherhand, affectedthe Appas-
sionata especially with respect to the motivic significanceof dynamic
accents.
21 Eric Blom, "The Prophecies of Dussek," in op. cit., p. 106.
 752 The Musical Quarterly

Ex. 8 Dussek,Op. 35, No. 2, firstmvt.,mm. 131ff.

a.A4 b

a. Beethoven,Op. 53, thirdmvt.,mm. 183ff. b.

A I I I
i

-i "nt.-,

Ex. 9 Dussek,Op. 35, No. 2, second mvt.,mm.1-2

Beethoven,Op. 28, fourthmvt.,mm.2-4

Wb, A.4J i=

r
T. %Jk h

Paul Bekkerremarkedwell over half a centuryago that Beethoven's

Opus 81a, The Farewell, is saddled with a programmaticoutlineas un-
originalin conceptionas its musical realizationis unique." But Bekker
failed to note that both the programand the realizationowed a great
deal to Dussek's The Farewell, Opus 44. As usual, Beethoven took
motivic and texturalcues from Dussek withoutthe slightestcompunc-
tion, adoptingfreelysome of Dussek's most characteristic
sonorities(Ex.
10). Years earlier,in Opus 27, No. 1, such a directtransfer(fromDus-
sek's sonata Opus 9, No. 2) had produced those typically"Beethoven-
22 Paul
Bekker,Beethoven (Berlin, 1921), p. 175. Beethoven resented the French
title Les Adieux, which the publishers,Breitkopfund Hiirtel, had printed without his
permission.Farewell, he wrote to them in October, 1811, is "somethingquite different
from 'Les Adieux.' The firstis said in a warm-hearted manner to one person, the
other to a whole assembly,to entire towns." Cf. The Letters of Beethoven, I, 338.
 Beethovenand the London PianoforteSchool 753

ian" exchangesof clearlydefinedthematicmaterial and decorativefig-

urationsbetweenthe two hands. As can be seen in Ex. 11, both Dussek
and Beethoven add sonorous "fillers"wheneverthe thematic material
Ex. 10 Op.44,secondmvt.,
Dussek, mm.38-40

Beethoven,Op. 81a, second mvt.,mm. 15-17

Ex. 11 Dussek,Op. 9, No. 2, firstmvt.,mm. 39-41

43-5
ramm.

Op. 27,No 1,third

Beethoven, mm.
mvt., 106-9

ramm
112-15

fA
754 The Musical Quarterly

appears in the treble range. But, somehow, Dussek sounds even more
Beethovenianin thisinstancethan Beethovenhimself.
Opus 81a belongs with the Choral Fantasy and the keyboardfan-
tasy Opus 77, the Pastoral Symphony,the Mignon songs,the cello so-
nata Opus 69, the two triosOpus 70, and the piano sonata Opus 78 to
Beethoven's most "romantic" period. Its contributiontoward the un-
precedentedstructuralfreedomof his later years can hardly be exag-
gerated,if only because it was one of the firstworksin which the for-
mally dialectical treatmentof his celebrated"two principles"gave way
to subtlershadings and gradations.The pairing of entire,expressively
complementary, compositionslike the looselyknit "Harp" Quartet and
the terselyorganizedF minorQuartet representeda finalattemptto stay
nominallywithin the limits of the classical matrix. Thereafter,tradi-
tional devices,thoughby no means rejected out of hand, had to yield,
whenevernecessary,to the intrinsicrequirementsof Beethoven'struly
revolutionary conceptionof musical formas psychologicalprocess.Inter-
estinglyenough,thisradical reappraisalof traditionalpatternsof freedom
and restraintfound its firstartisticrealizationin the finalgroup of key-
board sonatas, writtenafterthe arrival of the Broadwood piano from
England and aftermusic by Clementi'sprize pupil, John Field, had be-
come readilyavailable.23WhetherBeethovenhad occasion to acquaint
himselfwiththe workof the quicklyforgotten George FrederickPinto as
well is imposible to ascertain. But to judge by the stunningparallels
between Pinto's Sonata in E-flatminorand the firstmovementof Beet-
hoven's Opus 110, one would be inclinedto thinkso.24
Though born of an Italian motherwhose maiden name he assumed,
Pinto was the only native English member of the London Pianoforte
School. Tragicallyshortlived - he died in 1806 at the age of twenty-
he was also itsmostdaringrepresentative. At a timewhen Beethovenhad
barelymoved intohis "second period" youngPinto,togetherwithhis but
slightlyolder friendField, went a long way towardthe transformation of
23 Field's firstthree nocturneswere
published by Peters in 1814 and may well be
responsible for some of the nocturne-likepassages in Beethoven's later sonatas, for
example the firstvariation in the final movement of Opus 109. It may not be en-
tirelywithout interestin this connection that his nephew Karl was playing a Dussek
sonata while Beethoven was working on that particular composition. Cf. Joseph
Czerny'sremarkin Ludwig van BeethovensKonversationshefte, ed. Georg Schiinemann
(Berlin, 1942), II, 144.
24The Pinto sonata has been made available in a modern edition by Nicholas
Temperley (London, Stainer and Bell: 1963). Current awareness of Pinto is due
almost entirely to Dr. Temperley's efforts.Cf. "George Frederick Pinto," Musical
Times, CVI (1965), 265-70.
 Beethovenand the London PianoforteSchool 755

Dussek's rich keyboardidiom into the fullydeveloped musical language

of nineteenth-century ContinentalRomanticism.Pinto may or may not
have enjoyed Dussek's formalguidance for a while. It hardly matters,
forby 1803, when Pinto's sonatas were publishedwell ahead of Dussek's
most "romantic"works,the aestheticdie was solidlycast.
Circumstantialevidence suggestsat least the possibilitythat Beet-
hoven was not unaware of what his young English colleague was trying
to accomplish.Johann Peter Salomon, with whom Pinto studied violin
and who referredto his protegeas "the English Mozart," had known
Beethovensince his earlyBonn days and stayedin touch with him until
his death in 1815. Shortlyafterthe turnof the centuryBeethoven,eager
to be representedon one of Salomon's programs,sent him a copy of his
Septet "purely out of friendship."Among Salomon's close associates in
London was Ferdinand Ries, Beethoven's one-timepupil and lifelong
correspondent.Above all, Clementipassed throughVienna in 1804, the
year afterthe publicationof Pinto's two piano sonatas Opus 3, which,
though"printedforthe author,"list Clementiand Company among the
principalsales agents.' It may also be worthrecallingin thiscontextthat
BeethovenreceivednumerousvisitorsfromLondon while workingon his
last keyboardworks.In 1818, the year of the "Hammerklavier"Sonata,
Beethoven repeatedlysaw Cipriani Potter as well as Johann Andreas
Stumpffand Sir JuliusBenedict.
As a "prophet" of keyboardthingsto come Pinto is virtuallywithout
peers. In contrastto Clementi,whose idiom retainedcertain orchestral
affinitiesthroughout,Pinto thought "pianistically" in the nineteenth-
centurysense fromthe veryoutset.To cite but one persuasiveinstance,
the middle sectionof the slow movementin Opus 3, No. 2, could easily
pass for early Chopin (Ex. 12).26 The correspondingmovementin the
Ex. 12 Pinto,Op. 3, No. 2, second mvt.,mm.37-41

A.L
[Poco adagio affetuoso]

. . . ..-.

25In 1807 Clementi and Beethoven met again and concluded their firstpubli-
cation accord. Two years later they dined together at the house of Henikstein, the
Viennese banker. Cf. The Letters of Beethoven, I, 252.
26 The author is indebted to Nicholas
Temperley for a photostatic copy of this
most unusual excerpt.
756 The Musical Quarterly

E-flatminorSonata, on the otherhand, adds furthersupportto the con-

tentionthat Beethoven,far fromrejectingconvention,never ceased to
make carefulselectiveuse of a broadly based repertoryof generalized
ideas representing a great varietyof stylisticstrains.That his illustrious
Viennese predecessorsassumed less and less significancein that enduring
process was an inevitable functionof his ever keen alertnessto the
swiftlychangingtimesin which he lived.
Essentiallymonothematic,the sonata Opus 110 ranks, of course,
among the most sublime studiesin thematicexpansion and integration.
Pinto's sonata, too, thriveson a minimumof motivicsubstance,though
inevitablyat a much lower level of sophistication.The more striking
similaritiesbetween the two sonatas are, however,not of a structural
nature. They pertainratherto melodic, harmonic,and texturaldetails,
going well beyond the uncanny thematic resemblancesbetween Beet-
hoven's opening movementand Pinto's adagio in the same meter and
key (Ex. 13). Thus, Pinto's measures34-37 read almostlike a blueprint
of Beethoven'smeasures18-19: nearlyidenticalchordal descentsaftera
wide skip in the bass, nearlyidenticalfigurationalpatternsin the treble,
identicalpointsof harmonicarrival (Ex. 14). And both composersvary

Ex. 13 Pinto,Op. 3, No. 1, second mvt.,mm. 1-4

Adagiocon gusto

Beethoven, Op. 110, first mvt., mm. 1-5

Moderatocantabilemoltoespressivo
-"

pcon amabilitd

Ex. 14 Pinto,mm. 34-37

z cresc. dim.

Is WK
-IF A-r
 Beethovenand the London PianoforteSchool 757

Beethoven, mm. 18-19

'
I F i l l IF ! I I 1II
1'

theirrecapitulationsthrougharpeggiationin the left hand, a device of

which Pinto was particularlyfond. Pinto similarlyanticipatedthe melo-
dic contouras well as the repeated chord accompanimentof a particu-
larly beautifulpassage in the third movementof Opus 110 (Ex. 15).

Ex. 15 Beethoven,thirdmvt.,mm. 17-19

L- -t-.-. - -. - . .. . . 1 ! I
pi:j
1- ASA
:

Pinto,second mvt.,mm. 24-28

3
f A3 fII. fI
-p
f fz . .y, .-----7

Like Beethoven,Pinto makes abundant use of counterpointin his finale,

but his simplepointsof imitationare clearlyno match forBeethoven'sfu-
gal technique.There is indeed a curiousaffinitybetweenPinto'send prod-
uct and theskeletalideas foundin so manyof Beethoven'ssketches.By the
same token the Englishman'smusic does not even hint at anythinglike
the seamlessunfoldingof organicmovementthattypifies Beethovenriding
the crestof his structuralimaginationin one of his mostadmirableworks.
When all is said and done, therefore,comparativestudiesof the type
suggested here in no way endanger Beethoven's historicalor artisticstat-
ure: theyratheradd to a growingbody of evidence that his justlycele-
brated originalityderived not so much from any particularnoveltyof
inventionas froma matchlesspower of integrationand sublimationof
the widestpossiblevarietyof musical practices.Unflagginglysensitiveto
758 The Musical Quarterly

the vicissitudesof the human condition,Beethovenwas that rare musical

artistwho ranges freelyover the whole culturalspectrumof his era yet
in his supreme quest for unlimitedspiritualfreedommanages to tran-
scend all convention.And this,one suspects,is why he who "preserveda
human heart for all who are human" has himselfbeen preserved"as a
heritageto the wholeworld.""2

27 From Franz Grillparzer'sfuneral oration, as quoted in Michael Hamburger, ed.

and trans., Beethoven: Letters, Journals and Conversations (Garden City, N. Y.,
1960), p. 277.